home

The She-Pundit Lawyers Up

Via BradBlog from the Palm Beach Post on the She-Pundit with Long Blond Hair:

Conservative pundit and best-selling political writer Ann Coulter has hired a white-glove, White House-connected law firm to fight allegations she voted illegally in February's Town of Palm Beach election. And the attorney from the Miami-based Kenny Nachwalter firm is no stranger to Palm Beach voting. Marcos Jimenez -- who was, along with the more famous Olson, one of the lead attorneys who fought for George W. Bush's side in the 2000 presidential election snafu here -- was assigned to Coulter.

Jimenez is also a former Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

As to the investigation:

A poll worker reported to his supervisors that he saw Coulter try to vote in the precinct closest to her Palm Beach home. But when she was told the address on her voter's registration was elsewhere, Coulter ran out instead of correcting it and ended up voting in a precinct that wasn't hers. Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct in Florida is a felony.

Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson gave Coulter until April 30 to explain what happened, but she has yet to answer his registered letters. Now with Jimenez, Kelly said, officials will wait "a few more weeks" before starting a procedure that could strip Coulter of her right to vote here and refer the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer for possible prosecution. Coulter couldn't be reached and Jimenez didn't return calls.

I know Ms. Coulter doesn't like criminal defense attorneys, and it must be galling to her to have to stoop to retaining one, even one with a prosecutor's heart. I hope she doesn't do what Martha Stewart did and go in to speak with officials thinking she can talk her way out of it. The jails are filled with people who thought if only they could explain, proseuctors would see it their way and decline to file a case. Instead, their statements served as more fodder for the prosecution - and a conviction.

My advice: Button up, Ann, even if you have the best defense in the world. Save it for the jury. And if your politically savvy, white-glove law firm can't save you from being charged, give Roy Black a call. He has a great track record in Palm Beach county --Just ask Rush and Michael Kennedy Smith.

< RFK's Article on 2004 Ohio Voting Fraud | Judge Throws Libby a Small Bone >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    Please god, I promise to be a good and better person if you can help ensure that She Who Must Not Be Named finds some reason to ask the ACLU to defend her. Thank you, Jay P.S. God, I am talking about Ann Coulter. P.P.S. God, if you would trim her Adam's apple a bit, we would all appreciate that.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:08:05 PM EST
    No, no, no. The thing that works best is for her to go to the prosecutor and treat him/her to some of the patented Coulter vitrol. A good chewing out from Anne, and they'll back right off. Go for it, Anne!

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    oops--s/b "Ann," not "Anne". Sorry.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    TL: As much as your shut-up advice and opinion is valid - and I agree wholeheartedly with it and strongly believe in a good defense for all accuseds - it would be supremely pleasant, in a deep schadenfreude way - to watch this putative defendant go down. Or, as another commenter suggested, for her to have to turn to the ACLU for help. I'm thinking maybe we can hope for a new episode of Sol Wachtler's going from "Lock-em-all-up-in-Attica" to his now 180 degrees different. (Which would ensure she'd never be on TV again) She's a lawyer and was a law clerk on, I think, the 8th Circuit. She should know better. Plus, if she does go away for a while, we won't have to deal with her on Bill Maher when he comes off hiatus.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    Jeralyn- Giving advise to the one who cannont be named? I know that is your schtic.... but her? I guess that there is a fine line between criminal defense attorneys and spiritually enlightened beings on deck for sainthood.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:45:38 PM EST
    I concur with my fellow posters. Talk Left's advice is well taken, but I hope the alleged constitutional lawyer does not take the advice. On the bright side, I learned long ago while interning in a DA's office, defendent's frequently talk too much, even when they should know better and Ann Coulter's middle name is Hubris... BTW, Aside from the voting fraud issue, she could get hit in the pocket book as well with regard to her property taxes. Her homestead exemption and her entitlement to the SOH* assessment cap could be at stake. *SOH = Save Our Homes- it caps the amount of the property tax assessment, provided you live in the dwelling. This is different than the homestead exemption, which is an exemption applied after the assessment.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:30:47 PM EST
    like all good rich wroingwingers she feels she's above the law. See Limbaugh, Santorum, Bush, Delay, et al.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:41:34 PM EST
    What a coincidence, at first I thought you were talking about the mayor of Tulsa. Maybe they voted at the same precinct in FL.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    It truly is hilarious watching all you clamor and rejoice at the idea that Ann might be prosecuted for such a non issue simply because you disagree with her. my prediction... nothing will come of this. just one mans opinion.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    Don't worry about Ms. Ann taking my advice. I'm about the last person she would listen to. But, I don't wish criminal charges on anyone -- except lying snitches and cops.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#11)
    by aw on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    b.madison: Breaking the law is a nonissue.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 10:34:15 PM EST
    rogan...hard to believe Jeb missed taking them off the voter rolls. Or did you mean Republican felons?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 10:38:29 PM EST
    What a coincidence, at first I thought you were talking about the mayor of Tulsa. Maybe they voted at the same precinct in FL.
    Nice smear Wile, but it looks like the Tulsa County DA (a Republican) cleared the mayor of those charges.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 10:52:20 PM EST
    They're still gonna nail Reid for accepting those free Girl Scout Cookies if its the last thing they do.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    Ya gotta love how she likes to emphasize that her defense work has been restricted to defending (very) "white collar criminals." She knows her why-should-I-have-to-press-one-for-English target audience, no question about that.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 01:49:04 AM EST
    admittedly, there is a certain delicious irony here. that said, i'm at a loss as to why she just didn't correct the error in the first place, instead of letting it expand from a nothing clerical glitch, to a potential jail term/fine? much as i find her schtick loathesome, she isn't an idiot (actually, it would be better if she were.), so i really can't fathom what the hell she was thinking. oh well, if nothing else, it should be moderately entertaining. bmadison, don't you have a small country somewhere, to invade?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 02:28:29 AM EST
    Ernie: Thanks for the update, but my link was dated 02Jun06 and yours 29Mar06.....

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 02:31:44 AM EST
    Ernie, scratch that, you are correct. I was wrong. Sorry. I will go to work now.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 04:44:14 AM EST
    TL said:
    Don't worry about Ms. Ann taking my advice. I'm about the last person she would listen to. But, I don't wish criminal charges on anyone -- except lying snitches and cops.
    TL: Are you sure you're not putting the shut-up-and-let-your-lawyer-do-the-talking out there for her to read and do the exact opposite? (Just snarkin')

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:54:19 AM EST
    I just wish she'd shut up, period. She has nothing of value to contribute to the country.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 09:45:59 AM EST
    But, I don't wish criminal charges on anyone -- except lying snitches and cops.
    Well now the cat's out of the bag... I see truthful "snitches" are better off than cops. I come here to have my views challenged and usually find them strengthened, this is a classic example of why.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    Patrick, lately it starting to seem that you sometimes purposely miss points made here. You know as well as anyone, I think, that Jeralyn was referring to "lying" cops, as well as "lying" snitches. But you chose to misinterpret what she said. Why?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#23)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    edgar, Does it matter? Her problem obviously isn't with lying, unless it's someone she disagrees with politically.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#24)
    by aw on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    I think you've got some 'splainin to do, Patrick.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    How's that aw?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#26)
    by aw on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    How does Jeralyn not have a problem with lying?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    Well aw, all you have to do is read the thread. I know people are sometimes blind to some things, but I've been commenting here for quite a while and I'll just say the bias, based on my experience, is clear. Now, I'm going to enjoy my weekend before I have to go back to work and deal with lying defense attorneys and criminals who, despite what the host here believes, deserve to be charged.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    Its up to the court to decide whether they "deserve to be charged", not you, oh judge-jury-and-executioner.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#29)
    by Punchy on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    My advice: Button up, Ann, even if you have the best defense in the world. Ha! Not possible. Not remotely possible. Just like a shark that must forever swim to stay alive, AC's mouth must continually move for her to live. I think her voicebox is connected to her heart (they're both the same size...). We're about to hear about the most partisan, Democratic hack in SoFla (Anderson), we're going to be told that a liberal changed her address without telling her, and that everyone associated with the Palm Beach Police is the devil. Liberal Devils. This woman is incapable of shutting her top hole....

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    well I can't resist...Jondee, another one just like the other one...It's up to the district attorney or the AUSA, grand jury etc. Not the judge, jury or the executioner. Remember ignorance is curable, stupidity isn't.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:35:29 AM EST
    Patrick. Yes, it does matter. Especially if you are a cop testifying in court, and have a habit of deliberately misinterpreting.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#32)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    Patrick, lately it starting to seem that you sometimes purposely miss points made here.
    Replace patrick with edgar...

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    It also matters a hell of alot in the taser 'em and kick 'em a few times when their down-on-the-ground process before court.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#34)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    replace edgar with jondee

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    Yeah, Jondee. And don't forget to anwer "Why?" with "Does it matter?" Jeeze Jondee... when will ever learn, huh? ;-)

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Patrick - So, are you claiming that the attitude "they deserve to be charged" dosnt play a big factor in the treatment of suspects?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    Edgar, you're a smart guy, go back and read the comments. You'll see I never endorsed lying of any kind, while the host only decries lying snitches and depending on your interpretation all cops or lying cops. Of course I think you know that, but deflection is a common tool of a weak argument.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:55:35 AM EST
    Jondee, Not to me. If a person's a criminal, I'll catch them sooner or later. It's certainly not worth my job, but more importantly, it's not worth my self respect.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    Patrick, I asked you a simple question, and you seem to have taken it as an attack on you personally. When you said of Jeralyn: Well now the cat's out of the bag... I see truthful "snitches" are better off than cops. you appeared to be insinuating that she said that. She said no such thing. She said: But, I don't wish criminal charges on anyone -- except lying snitches and cops. Which any reasonable person would interpret as referring to 'lying snitches and lying cops', yet it appears you chose to misinterpret her statement as a blanket indictment of all cops as liars. Why?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    Patrick - Well good on you then. And to be fair, when I first read the initial post, my first thought was "uh-oh, that aint gonna go over big with Patrick".

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    edgar, does it matter was not a response to your question why, it was a response to....
    You know as well as anyone, I think, that Jeralyn was referring to "lying" cops, as well as "lying" snitches.
    To which I then went on to clarify,
    Her problem obviously isn't with lying, unless it's someone she disagrees with politically.
    Try to keep up here...OK?

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    Edger - Its one of those fairly-easy-to-take-the-wrong-way wordings I think. Especially if you take into account the different biases that people bring to the site.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    Oh, I'm keeping more than I think you realize. I'm glad you're not testifying against me or anyone I know... you're doing too good a job of shredding your own credibility here... I'd hate to see what a good defence lawyer would do to you once she got you on the witness chair.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:09:28 PM EST
    Jondee, yeah, I suppose. Seems to be a regular occurrence around here.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#45)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    you're doing too good a job of shredding your own credibility here... I'd hate to see what a good defence lawyer would do to you once she got you on the witness chair.
    I guess you're entitled to your opinion, I've already been against many good one, Tony Serra for one, and one of his loyal subjects, Omar Figuroa (sp?). They both lost, and I wasn't shredded. I think Tony is considered a "good defence" lawyer, I'm not so sure about Omar. Actually I have quite a good reputation locally, and I make sure I keep it. but thanks for your concern.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    You're welcome. Have a good day. :-)

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    I'm glad you're not testifying against me or anyone I know...
    Of course if you really thought that way, I'd think you'd be glad I was testiying, not the other way around.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    I wasn't concerned about me. I can see I might be acquitted due to a prosecution case full of holes. I'd just hat to see a good cop be embarassed, you know? :-)

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Good for you Patrick that you are so honest. I guess that there are some honest mobsters out there too. Why do you thing that such an unimpeacheable bunch ever got stuck with the nickname pigs? Hint: it was not for keeping 'clean'.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    Patrick, Come on, my friend, to assume Jeralyn made a blanket statement against all cops is a bit reactionary. You made as blanket a statement about defense attornies. We have an adversarial justice system. Would you prefer a system where the defense is essentially an arm of the prosecution. A defense attorney is speaking FOR their client not AS their client. They are as necessary as prosecutors and, certainly, they are as prone to lie as prosecutors, being human. Stay safe, my friend.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#52)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    We expect crooks to lie. We expect lawyers and cops to be honest.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    Its one of those leap-of-faiths that we all need to get through the day.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#54)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    dadler, I think our justice system is the best in the world, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I would prefer a truth seeking system, but I haven't the slightest at how to do that, so until there's some way to guarantee rights and still get the truth, I guess I'll have to take it. That said, I've had many defense attorney's advance theories they knew to be false. Even had one apologise to me right before he called me a liar in a jury trial. Said, "It's my clients defense." I couldn't and wouldn't do that. As with any profession there are good and bad, and my experience with the bad ones doesn't make them all liars. I can see how my comment would have implied that. So do you agree that only lying snitches and cops deserve to be charged, as our host does? That is the point I am contesting. I've seen people who committed crimes for reasons I felt were valid, like stealing food for hungry children. I even paid up for one young mother who I was called to arrest for shoplifting milk. Made the complainant happy, and he didn't want to press it. But cases like that are few and far between. I'd venture to say that most criminals deserve to be charged for their crimes, including LEO's when they commit them.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#55)
    by Patrick on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    also including Ann Coulter if she committed a crime. Even though I find her quite amusing.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    I don't wish criminal charges on anyone -- except lying snitches and cops. Sounds to me like she does wish to see anyone screw up so badly that they end up charged with a criminal offense, but that she also feels that snitches and cops who lie especially deserve criminal charges because they are lying to set someone else up for a fall. One often for gain of leniency, the other as an abuse of a position of authority.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:27:14 PM EST
    correction to first sentence above: does not wish

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:44:13 PM EST
    And I apologize, Patrick, for accusing you of intentionally misinterpreting her. I misunderstood you, I think. I think you misunderstood Jeralyn, but honestly, not intentionally.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 09:43:58 AM EST
    Patrick, Fair enough. I still don't think defense attornies lie with anymore frequency than police, priests, or any other member of the public. The lawyer who apologized to you at least was stand-up enough to do it. And for every job he does that he doesn't like, there are many he feels passionately about -- just like you I'd imagine. Have you ever fudged the truth to put away someone you felt was guilty, or whom you felt was too large a threat to let walk? Have you ever helped put away someone whom you didn't really think belonged in jail? If the answer is no to these, then I'd have to question whether you're really being objective. As biased as you believe Jeralyn to be in favor of the defense, you wouldn't deny you often have an equal bias in favor of law enforcement. Or would you? I have no problem putting away people who harm others, steal from them. But I also have no problem with a checks and balances system that might not be perfect, but is certainly better than requiring defense attornies to be more pure of heart than police or prosecutors of judges or juries. Stay safe, my friend.

    Re: The She-Pundit Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    Edgar, I realize that I can get defenseive and read into other's comments, to what extent is the question here. I think the host should explain her comments, because I don't think they are innocent as you do. Of course that is based on many experiences here for the past several years as well as the comment. But fair enough, I apologize for my attitude. Dadler, I've made many mistakes, but never intentionally. Nor do I know anyone, who is still a cop, who has. Defense attorney's like to try to pin you down on things like distances etc. If I don't know for sure I always preface the answer with it's an estimate or a WAG. Last year I was testifying as an expert on indoor marijuana plant yields and made a mistake. I realized it after my testimony was over for the day, but the very next day, I made the DA begin my re-direct with a question that allowed me to correct the mistake. I admit it when I'm wrong and that helps make me more effective. I think cops who lie on the stand deserve to be in jail, and would have absolutely no qualms testifying against one. I wouldn't like it, but I would do it. However, a mistake or testiying to a belief that later turns out to be incorrect are not the same thing as lying. Figuring out the difference some times may be more open to interpretation and bias, so that is where I think my bais would come into play. If there was a reasonable argument the officer was mistaken, I think I'd be more inclined to believe it was a mistake than many here. That's because we all are subject to our perceptions and mine is that cops are honest.